[Abonnement] [Om Maal og Minne] [Forfatterinstruks] [Arkiv] [Bymålslaget ] [E-post] [Det Norske Samlaget]
In this article the author argues that in the Old Norse culture androgyny was regarded as the proto-image of chaos. In Old Norse mythology androgyny is associated both with the first living being in the universe, the giant Ymir, and with Loki, the giant who more than any other tried to accelerate the course of events that led to ragnarök. Old Norse níð in the form of accusations directed against men for having given birth to children is seen in connection with the childbearing giants in Old Norse myths. The androgyny associated with the first giant is also closely linked to the evolution of life itself, and thus represents the creative power of chaos. The destructive power of chaos on the other hand, which finally led to ragnarök, is personalized in the androgynous giant Loki who is both man and woman, father and mother. He may even be responsible for the rebirth of Gullveig, the most mysterious figure in Old Norse mythology.
Maal og Minne 1 (1998): 1-9
The designation blindi recurs as part of some of Óðinn's names. Since he is one-eyed this designation is related to his lack of vision or to his ability to blind an emeny. However, the root blind- has another, less common, meaning of 'concealment'. This paper wishes to show that no text ever attributes lack of vision to the god. Óðinn is in fact a hidden, mysterious, masked being whose motives are 'concealed' to men. Therefore a meaning of 'concealment' should be attributed to the root blind-. The findings are based on modern and medieval dictionary definitions, on episodes of the Eddic texts and the sagas, on the meanings of Óðinn's names, in folk traditions about one-eyedness, and on some examples from non-Germanic religions.
Maal og Minne 1 (1998): 11-19
Skaldic love poetry (mansöngr) originates in statement facts, rather than description of feelings; the praise for the object of love is hardly more important than the defamation of the rival. Thus mansöngr is originally closer to love magic than to love lyric. In typologically later poems facts are related for the sake of expressing emotions: the appearance of a woman and aesthetic landscape are described (which is unusual for Old Norse culture). Alongside the pragmatic and informative function there appears an aesthetic aim. This aim is achieved through transforming folklore formulaic poetic devices (parallelisms, metaphors, similes) into means of lyrical self-expression, which is accompanied by changes on all levels of the organisation of the vísa: phraseology, syntax and versification. The personality of the author is realised through new “non-skaldic” means - no longer infinitely complicating formal restrictions, making them more detailed and varied, but also creating and poeticising an image.
Maal og Minne 1 (1998): 21-33
Etter en kort presentasjon av Tuneinnskriften drøftes de to lakunene. (1) Med utgangspunkt i Aslak Liestøls observasjoner i 1982 påpekes at det foran ordet Woduride i rad B1 fins rester av et interpunksjonstegn på to prikker, og at det er en avskalling fra den øverste prikken som (feilaktig) er blitt tatt som venstre kvist av en R-rune. Følgelig kan første ordet i B1 som tidligere foreslått fylles ut til (fal)h, vb.pret. 'overdro', og det er ikke nødvendig å anta noen feilristning. (2) I lakunen øverst i A2 har det etter alles mening stått et ord runoR (eller runo f.sg.akk.). Etter sammenhengen bør dette ordet her ikke bety 'skrifttegn', men ha en eldre betydning 'hemmelighet; hemmelig (esoterisk) religiøs formular'. Innholdet blir da at WiwaR forrettet en religiøs seremoni etter Wodurid.
Maal og Minne 1 (1998): 35-40
The purpose of the article is to shed light on the issue of the sources of the earliest Icelandic chronicle of kings' sagas, namely the Oldest Morkinskinna (ca. 1220), and to ascertain whether one can identify parts of that compilation that drew on earlier written sagas about the Norwegian kings from 1035-1157. A monograph by Didrik Arup Seip (Trondhjems bynavn, 1930) served as the basis for the investigation. Seip traced the different names of the city of Trondheim from their earliest attestations onwards and showed that, whereas the name of the city in the earliest sources was "Þrándheimr," "Kaupangr," after 1180-90 "Niðaróss" became the official name of the city. That change ought to be reflected in twelfth- and thirteenth-century literature, and, consequently, one should be able to use the presence or absence of "Þrándheimr," "Kaupangr," and "Niðaróss" as the names of the city of Trondheim as the criterion for establishing the dates of such texts and their sources. The present investigation shows that the change of the name of the city of Trondheim is reflected in the separate sagas in the extant version of Morkinskinna. The distribution of the names in the individual sagas reveals a much stronger authorial (thirteenth-century) presence in the sagas of Haraldr harðráði, Magnús góði, and Óláfr kyrri than in the sagas from Magnús berfoettr to Ingi Haraldsson, and suggests that the person responsible for the composition of the former was the author of the Oldest Morkinskinna. Conversely, the absence of the name "Niðaróss" in the later sagas indicates that the author had access to more extensive written sources for that part of the narrative.
Maal og Minne 1 (1998): 41-60
Forfatteren argumenterer for at den gjengse tolkningen av navnet Oslo som 'gudesletta' bygger på et svakt fundament - og at den neppe kan være riktig. Det blir i stedet argumentert for at navnet må tolkes som 'engsletta under [Ekeberg]åsen'.
Maal og Minne 1 (1998): 61-65
Artikkelens utgangspunkt er et generelt inntrykk av at norsk navnegransking for en del er i utakt med utviklinger ellers i språkvitenskapen. For å etterprøve dette synspunktet blir titlene i litteraturlistene i det norske navnetidsskriftet Namn og Nemne klassifisert etter fem kriterier. Undersøkelsene bekrefter i all hovedsak inntrykket av at nyere norsk navnegransking for en del blir bedrevet som en autonom disiplin, der de språkvitenskapelige referansene i hovedsak gjelder litteratur skrevet innenfor andre teoretiske paradigmer enn dem som rår i dag. I artikkelens del to blir dette forholdet forsøkt forklart. Tre faktorer trekkes fram som relevante i sammenhengen. Disse er navnegranskingsdisiplinens sterke tradisjon i Norge, vektleggingen av navnematerialets annerledeshet og dermed disiplinens autonomi, og det faktum at utviklinger i språkvitenskapen har fjernet potensielle møtepunkter mellom navnegranskingen og språkvitenskapen for øvrig.
Maal og Minne 1 (1998): 67-83
